my thanks to anna, a.b., marc, most of all, to you for watching. "mtp daily" with my friend katy tur in for chuck todd starts now. welcome to monday. it is "meet the press daily." good evening, i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd at the start of what will be a historic week for our country. on wednesday, just two days from now, the house of representatives is all but certain to vote to impeach president donald trump. making him just the third president in american history to be impeached. ahead of that vote, the house judiciary committee released a

658-page report, explaining the two articles of impeachment levied against the president. suggesting that the president broke several laws, including bribery and wire fraud. and the jockeying has now begun in the senate where a historic trial will determine if the president is removed from office. senate minority leader chuck schumer acknowledged today that his republican colleagues are going to acquit the president. unless more evidence emerges. >> there are many who have said these are serious charges. but i'm not sure there's enough factual evidence to merit impeachment. these people know better than anybody else the facts. there is no reason on god's green earth why they shouldn't be called and testify. unless you're afraid of what they might say. >> those witnesses, schumer says, must testify. including, acting white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, and former national security advisor, john bolton. neither of whom testified before the house intelligence or judiciary committees. and while schumer may insist on

witness testimony in a senate trial, there is no way for him to enforce that. especially, with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, who has said publicly that he will coordinate with the white house on impeachment. the same white house that blocked mulvaney's testimony before the house. so let's get right to it with nbc's jeff bennet on capitol hill and nbc's chief white house correspondent hallie jackson at the white house. so chuck schumer is putting it out there. he's saying i want these witnesses to testify, jeff. but he doesn't have all that much sway. >> yeah. >> what is he doing? >> but he could, right? and so this is -- this is the thing. so chuck schumer clearly is making -- is making clear that he's not going to give into mitch mcconnell's desire to have a witnessless trial. and in that press conference, he also told me in response to a question that he believes he had sufficient support from democrats and republicans to

back his resolution. which would yield the kind of trial that he wants. now, if that's true, if he can pick off four republicans to join with democrats to push him over that 51, that -- that simple majority -- well, then all bets are off for what we think we know how a senate trial might go. right now, what we know, based on private conversations among republicans, is that mitch mcconnell has signalled that he wants a hearing that would be as fast and forgettable as possible. so it would start with the house managers, the house prosecutors, presenting the case. you'd then have the white house legal team present a rebuttal. at some point, the senators themselves would decide if they would -- have heard enough. they would take a simple up or down vote. impeachment would come to an end because there are not the 67 votes they need to convict president trump. he would be acquitted. that would be it. not a witness would ever cross the threshold of the senate. but chuck schumer today says, no, that would not be fair. he says witnesses are present at trials. and if you have a trial without the facts, then you would be

complicit in a coverup. and so that is the argument that he is making to that handful of -- of moderate and some vulnerable senate republicans. the implicit argument is, if you don't come along with us, you are complicit in this coverup. and so he is making an appeal to these senators that they would try to do right by, and preserve the dignity, of this upper chamber, which really privileges tradition and precedent as being almost sacrosanct. he's outlined a process very similar to the process used in the '90s against president clinton. >> you're there, jeff, and talking to people every day. what is the sense you are getting about where those vulnerable senators, those potentially-convincible senators stand? how much pressure are they feeling in their home districts? and how is chuck schumer trying to, indirectly, other than saying publicly that he wants these witnesses, how is he indirectly trying to influence them? >> well, that is a good question for which i don't have a great answer because the only senator

who has sort of expressed that kind of thing publicly would be mitt romney. we've not heard susan collins, cory gardner, maybe even a tom ti tillis, a lisa murkowski. to go that far to suggest that they would back something to the degree to which the senate democratic leader is suggesting. or that they'd go beyond that to vote to, let's say, even convict president trump. so it is certainly something that we're watching. interestingly enough, you heard mitch mcconnell today, our team caught up with him. and he said that he expects to talk to schumer either sometime tonight or tomorrow. and he expects to have an answer by tomorrow afternoon about what he makes of this proposal that the senate democratic leader has laid out. >> very interesting. hallie jackson, how much coordination is happening, actual coordination, between the white house and mitch mcconnell? >> so mitch mcconnell has talked about this publicly. that he is in conversations and having conversations with the white house. and -- and has gone farther than i think some democratic senators would have liked him to go. it is notable i think and

interesting that senator schumer said this morning he didn't think conversations in and of themselves would be problematic. it is the willingness in schumer's words and mcconnell to do kind of whatever the white house wants him to do that he would find most concerning. i can tell you that based on conversations with one of the senior administration officials i had today, the white house is working, already got its eye on the ball. past this week to what might happen in a senate trial. as you and jeff are talking about here. there will be work, i'm told, continuing throughout the holidays. even over these next couple of weeks while the president is expected to be down at his mar-a-lago resort. there will be work continuing on how to get ready for that. i have sensed more of an openness with the folks that i've been talking to here. to a shorter trial. there is, the white house says, hey, the president and officials and sources i talk to say the president feels aggrieved. like he has not had a fair shake in this house process and wants that fair shake in the senate process. at the same time, you're also starting to see some language about concerns that if this isn't going to be fair anyway, and if the house is going to move forward as it is expected to on wednesday, why sort of

drag this out much longer? why not wrap this up? and so i do think, you know, again, all of the sources we've talked to have said the president's ready for anything. they are okay with a shorter trial, a longer trial. something in the middle. the president still wants those witnesses called as he's been calling for for a while. that's an open question, though. and that's going to be worked out in these negotiations you are a he talking about between senator schumer and mcconnell. >> what about rudy giuliani? today, there was an article in the new yorker. an interview with him, a reporter asked him about ukraine and he said he needed to get marie yovanovitch out of the way because she was standing in the way of the investigations, politically-motivated investigations, that he wanted. here's the quote from that article. was the president asked about this today? and isn't that just kind of an admission that, yeah, we were pursuing these investigations? and, yes, this ambassador didn't want it to happen. it seems like a foot-in-mouth scenario. >> or do the president's

personal attorneys saying the quiet part out loud, right? there is now not a dispute. the facts of the matter. whether or not rudy giuliani wanted marie yovanovitch in that role or not. and rudy is acknowledging that -- giuliani is acknowledging that in an extremely public way in an interview with the "new yorker." yes, the president was asked about this, not specifically as far as that quote but generally about what kinds of conversations he has had with giuliani about that trip to ukraine. the answer was kind of interesting. i think we have it and i want to play it for you if we can. >> how much has giuliani shared with you about his recent trip to ukraine? >> not too much. but he's a very great crime fighter. he was probably the greatest crime fighter over the last 50 years. very smart. he was the best mayor in the history of the city of new york. he is a great person who loves our country. and he does this out of love, believe me. he does it out of love. he sees what goes on. he sees what's happening. he sees all of the hoax that happens when they talk about impeachment hoax. or the russian collusion delusion. and he sees it and he's a great

gentleman. and he was, again, the greatest mayor in the history of new york. and probably the greatest crime fighter in the last 50 years. he knows what he's doing. >> worth noting that when the president is asked, as he was there by one of our colleagues in the press corps, what has giuliani told you about the trip to ukraine? the president's response was not much. not nothing. katy. >> interesting. russian collusion delusion. sounds like schoolhouse rock. hallie jackson, jeff bennet. guys, thank you very much. for more, i am joined on set by new york magazine national correspondent, nbc political analyst zerlina maxwell, and msnbc contributor jon horowitz. everybody, welcome. i just wonder what this senate is trial is going to look like and how much of a trial it's actually going to be. mitch mccobbnnell is out there saying we're going to coordinate with the white house. don't worry, sean hannity, the president will be acquitted. he seems to think that there are people in the senate that might be convincible. >> well, i think he's operating

probably not in the real world. but he's operating in an ideal world where both parties have serious people elected -- in elected office. i think we should move forward under the assumption that republicans are going to take this seriously. and then they should prove us wrong. i don't think that we should assume that they're not going to uphold their oath. they have to actually take an oath before the impeachment trial begins that says they'll be impartial. and so let's -- let's see if they will seriously take the oath. and then uphold their constitutional duty. i don't think that, assuming they're going to do the wrong thing is the right tact here. let's them off the hook way too easily. >> is it fair to assume that susan collins is somebody that might put pressure on mitch mcconnell to call witnesses? is it fair to assume mitt romney might do that? or cory gardner, tom tillis? are they -- can the democrats rely on them or rely on the voters in their -- in their states to put enough pressure on them to make it -- to make it a real trial? >> i think if history is any

indication, recent history, probably not. but the case that schumer and a lot of other senate democrats are making is that they're going to at least try, like zerlina said, because this is the time when you at least have to try and make that case. obviously, mitt romney is not necessarily responding to the democratic voters of utah and he's certainly not up for re-election until 2022. but these other folks do potentially have some difficult re-elections on their hands next november. realistically speaking, though, how likely is it that those voters are going to be talking about the procedural vote early on in the year during the impeachment all the way in november? that's what these senators are thinking about. now, i do think there are going to be democratic voters calling these people's offices. but if you're cory gardner, if you're hearing from mitch mcconnell a lot more than you are hearing from chuck schumer and your democratic leagues. >> what do you think? >> i think, politically, it would be madness for these vulnerable, republican senators to look, appear in their states as though they are cow towing to

chuck schumer and the democrats. they have to consolidate the republican vote at 100% of what they can possibly get if they are to prevail in november. if they split the baby, they are going to lose. trump has put them in a very difficult position. like, it would be better for them if they didn't have to cast this difficult vote. one way or the other. and -- and either go, you know, so appear to be a cat's paw of trump's or to be -- >> was it better to be a cat's paw of trump for susan collins? or for tom tillis? or cory gardner? >> yes. >> they can survive that in their home states. >> that's the only way they can survive because this is early, right? it's -- it's january this will happen. there's ten months to go. you could have a republican challenger in a primary. you could have a third-party right wing candidate syphoning votes off. trump will possibly encourage such things as a mark and a tact

on their disloyalty. >> what about for history, though? are there any -- any senators, republican senators looking at this and saying, gosh, this is going to be written about in the history books. i'm not sure i want my name next to this. >> yeah, romney. i think mitt romney. >> he's the only one? >> he is the only one. and by the way -- >> why is he the only one? >> yeah. >> why is he the only one? because he is the least vulnerable of anybody. okay? he is not -- he does not come up until 2024. he is in his 70s. >> there are other senators of that profile. >> there are other senators who i think are retiring and there are some democrats who might be saying, hey, lamar alexander, what do you think about this? however, we have to be very careful about this. the reason democrats are bringing up people like susan collins and cory gardner is, yes, they are up for re-election. but they are bringing them up because they have to because they've gotten no indication from those who are politically not vulnerable, like lamar alexander who is retiring. >> are they trying to put public pressure on them as well by bringing up their names and saying, these people, these people, these people.

voters in those areas, make sure you call their hotline. >> you're susan collins and you have to face the voters of maine and you have a strong democratic challenger. do you actually believe that if you do the right thing in this regard and, you know, go up against your president. >> leaders have a lot of independent voters. >> but that a single democratic voter is going to cross the aisle and vote for you because you did -- >> maine is populated by a lot of independent-minded voters who put someone like angus king into the senate. people who aren't necessarily voting along party affiliation. >> but colorado doesn't. and that's cory gardner. and north carolina doesn't and that's tom tillis. i mean, i'm just saying -- >> republicans -- there are republicans in those states. republican independents in those states who are -- who might be turned off by this whole thing. those -- i don't know -- those fictional republicans that aren't sure about trump. or those independents that put you over the edge. >> the polling this weekend says 92% of republicans support trump and 6% don't. >> republicans are in a bad

position. i think that's what we've established in this conversation is they're in a really tough pickle because the facts are not on their side. they refuse to defend any of the facts. and as jon said correctly, you know, 90% of their support, trump's support, they are going to need in order to win their own primary races. now, i wish we lived in a world in which they could do the right thing because it's the right thing. but we -- you know, we're talking about politics and that's not always the case. >> i think an important thing to remember here is we're just talking about the procedural issue of calling witnesses to the trial. we're not even talking about whether to actually -- >> exactly. >> and so if we were going to be talking about that more seriously, i think that we -- these senators would have already been -- >> what do democrats do? do they withhold articles as larry tribe suggested on twitter? because they don't think the senate's going to -- you're laughing. >> that's like throw them into the briar. that would be the greatest thing for republican senators ever if the house said you can't have our articles of impeachment. >> or do they try to demand it? do they -- do they try to --

>> republicans? >> well, no, democrats. do they try to demand that these witnesses be called? do they -- they -- manufacturer scenario where chief justice john roberts or one of the house managers does this where chief justice john roberts has to litigate whether these people come out and testify. >> i do think that's part of a smarter strategy in the sense that they have to ensure they're taking the process seriously. one of the republican complaints is that we don't have due process. this process is a sham. okay. bet. we're going to put forward a list of witnesses that are fact witnesses. that can, you know, enhance the amount of information and clarity we have around what happened here. and we're taking this seriously. republicans, are you going to do that, too? >> one last question. justin amash is a house manager. wise move? any possibility? >> i think it's a little gimmicky. i think you just pick the best people. don't try to pick a republican just to have a republican on your side. >> he's not republican anymore. >> i think it would be a smart

move. i don't think it matters really. >> yeah. >> but it would be cute. nice coverage. >> okay. john horowitz, thank you very much. zerlina and gabe, stick around. as we were just talking about, senators are supposed to be impartial during an impeachment trial. but is that really possible in this day and age? i'm going to ask maryland democratic senator ben carden coming up. and later, the list of trump district democrats who are publicly declaring support for impeachment articles is growing. but will doing their jobs cost them their jobs? tough fights, the ones that make a true difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him.

i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today.

to engage a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a coverup. to conduct a trial without the facts is saying we're afraid. we have something to hide. to conduct a trial without relevant witnesses, who haven't been heard from, to just rehash

the evidence presented in the house, just doesn't make any sense. if leader mcconnell doesn't hold a full and fair trial, the american people will rightly ask what are you, leader mcconnell, and what is president trump hiding? >> welcome back. that was the senate's top democrat, chuck schumer trying to ratchet up the pressure on senate republicans to subpoena four white house officials, including acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security advisor john bolton to testify in the senate's impeachment trial. both republicans and democrats are facing a number of difficult questions, as they begin hammering out what exactly this historic trial is going to look like. joining me now is one of the top democrats in the chamber. senator ben carden of maryland. senator, thank you so much for joining us. chuck schumer today said that he needs mulvaney's testimony. he needs bolton's testimony. the two other white house officials' testimony because

they need to complete the investigation. they need to complete and get all the information they need for this trial. if they need to complete it, why weren't these men called before the house impeachment inquiry? why didn't house democrats go to court and say we need these people to complete our investigation? >> katy, it's good to be with you. i think the house made its own judgments as to the information it needed in order to present articles of impeachment. and to vote on articles of impeachment. in the united states senate, it's the trial. we are the jury. and i think it's reasonable to expect that we should hear directly from those witnesses that have the information about why the president did what he did. and when he did it and what his motivations were all about. these are very serious charges about the president using the power of his office to engage a foreign power to get involved in our elections on the side of the president. and then the president tried to interfere with the congressional

investigation. these are matters in which the senate should be able to call its own witnesses. those that are the closest to the facts of the case. so that we can judge not only the testimony but the voracity of the witnesses. >> can you have a complete trial? a -- a -- a fair trial if you don't get those witnesses? >> i think what leader schumer has asked for is very reasonable. they're four witnesses. it's not a long list. a certain amount of material. i think it's a reasonable request. what i would hope is that leader mcconnell would sit down with senator schumer. and sit down with the managers of the house. and sit down with the president's counsel. and work out a fair process for this trial. but certainly, what leader schumer has asked for is very reasonable. you would think everyone would want to hear from those that have the information about why the president did what he did. >> but what i was asking is, can you have a trial with incomplete evidence? if you do not -- if you're not able to get those witnesses, if mcconnell says no, can you

actually have a trial without all the evidence at hand? >> i think it's important to have the evidence at hand. i think that decision should be made with -- with the senator schumer and senator mcconnell. i, personally, believe you need to hear from these witnesses. >> what does a fair and impartial trial look like to you? >> well, what it means is each one of us -- 100 senators are going to take an oath of office. oath of a juror, not oath of office. that we're going to act impartially on the evidence that is submitted. that means, yes, we may have viewed about how serious this issue is. and -- and what the president's conduct. but we are -- must be judged by the evidence that's presented at a trial. and then make our separate determination as to whether this elevates to an impeachable offense. i regret, whether it be a democrat or republican, those who have prejudged and have already come to conclusions. i think what leader mcconnell has done in telling the president, basically, i'll do

whatever you want is not acting as an impartial juror. >> have you prejudged? have you made a decision? >> i have not prejudged how i would vote after a senate trial. we don't have the articles of pa impeachment yet. they haven't been acted on in the house. we haven't heard the evidence yet. so i have not prejudged but do i have a view about how serious these issues are? you bet i do. >> you watched alongside the rest of us and the house democrats called a number of fact witnesses before them. a couple weeks ago. and each one of them testified the same thing. that there was a quid pro quo. that rudy giuliani was leading it and the president wanted those investigations. and ukraine knew about it. >> well, exactly. so -- but understand, the senators are judged by how the material is presented on the floor of the united states senate. by the house managers, the president's defense, and hopefully the witnesses that we can hear from directly. that's how we have to judge our decision-making. that's what a trial is all

about. that's what our constitutional responsibilities are all about. and each member of the senate needs to respect the constitution and act in accordance to the constitution. >> what sort of evidence could be presented that would get you to acquit? >> well, i don't want to get ahead of where we are. we're not even at the -- the articles being approved by the house. that'll be done, we expect, sometime this week. i'm going to listen to the evidence. and i'm going to listen to the arguments. that's what you would expect every senator to do. >> and trying to get some of the -- the requests by chuck schumer filled, the request for bolton or mulvaney to testify, would you be willing to bargain with republicans? the president wants to call hunter biden. would you be willing to say, fine, you can call hunter biden if we can get mulvaney and bolton and the two other white house officials? >> i would like to know why they would like to have hunter biden testify. as to what facts, relative to establishing what the articles of impeachment are about, we need to know the relevancy of

this testimony. i don't think anyone questions the relevancy of the four witnesses that senator schumer has asked be called. >> so that's a no. >> i -- i -- i would listen to what the president's defense team believes the relevancy of this is. if they can have a relevancy, then we can debate it. >> can i ask one other question? giuliani. why is he on nobody's witness list? >> well, i think he'd be an interesting witness. that's a good question. right now, i think senator schumer would be pleased just to get these four witnesses before the united states senate. >> interesting because giuliani admitted to a reporter that he wanted marie yovanovitch out of the way because she was standing in -- in -- in the way of the investigations he wanted. senator ben cardin, senator, thank you so much for joining us. >> my pleasure. good to be with you. >> next up, we're heading to a swing district in a swing state to show you the cheers and the jeers. one moderate democrat got today when she announced her decision to vote for impeachment.

johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we want you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. all: the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.

♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on

us. it's what this country is made of. but right now, our bond is fraying. how do we get back to "us"? the y fills the gaps. and bridges our divides. donate to your local y today. because where there's a y, there's an us.

♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. speaker pelosi says she will not be leaning on any of her swing district members to vote for the articles of impeachment. but those democrats are facing a tough decision on impeachment. and they're running out of time to make it. moderate new jersey congressman jeff van drew, whose district backed trump in 2016, is reportedly planning to leave the democratic party altogether over

impeachment. although, his staff tells nbc news no formal announcement of his party switch is planned today. but van drew is in the extreme minority of the party's 40 or so most vulnerable democrats. nearly all have announced that they will vote to impeach president trump. one of them is michigan congresswoman elisa slotkin who announced her decision today in a town hall that clearly showed the deep division and the deeply-divided world we're living in. my nbc news colleague, leanne caldwell, is in rochester, michigan, where congressman slotkin held a town hall today. leanne, it got heated. >> uh-huh. it did, katy. and like you said, it shows how polarizing politics are these days. especially, on this issue of impeachment. now, slotkin spoke to people on the eve of the impeachment vote, which is huge within itself. she wasn't hiding. what she was doing is she started her day with an opinion piece in the local paper here.

she held a town hall. she gagled with reporters. she had one on ones with reporters even after that. so she spent the day trying to explain to her constituents why she came out for this -- for -- for both articles of impeachment. but that's also necessary for her to take the time to explain this because this is a trump district. the president won this district by almost seven points in 2016. and so she already knows that she's going to have a tough re-election. and so she thinks that the more she can explain where she's coming from, the more comfortable her voters will be. and there were a lot of supporters in that room today. the room filled 4 to 500 people. and most of them applauded, gave her standing ovations for her position. but there was a very loud and rowdy minority who disagreed with her. they tried to interrupt and disrupt her throughout the entire question-and-answer session that went on for about an hour.

and they were -- they were huge trump supporters. a lot of them, i found out, were actually work or volunteer for the michigan republican party. but there were voters here who do not support impeachment. katy. >> that is a good point that a number of those protestors work for the republican party there. let's play a portion of her town hall where she's trying to explain her decision and is being interrupted. >> presidents regularly wield their power. they regularly leverage their position to influence other countries. that's a normal part of what a president does. but what was fundamentally different for me is that the president decided to do this for his own political gain. and not for the national security interests of the united states. >> leigh anne, she's trying to make a political argument. she's saying i know national security and he is a threat to national security. is that sort of argument being made a by a local congresswoman, somebody just elected to the

house in 2018, is that the sort of argument that's resonating with a broad swath of voters? with independent voters? voters she would need to hang on to in 2020? >> well, we're going to have to see how this all plays out over the next 11 months until the election. but she is using that national security argument because she has a long history of national security credentials. she worked for the cia. she worked for the department of defense. and so that gives her a lot of credibility among her supporters. but today, in that audience, katy, trump supporters used that against her. yelling deep state, cia operative. and so for many of these people who adhere to this president, they think that that is a bad thing. and she made an important and interesting point in her comments, as well. when she says that something is deeply-concerning to her, the fact that people think that the president should go to the ukrainians and not our own fbi, she said, is a big problem in this country.

>> leigh anne caldwell, leigh anne, thank you very much. we'll talk more after the break including what voters need to see to make up their minds on the democratic field. any comments doug? yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin.

man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action.

itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

i think it's ridiculous. he put politics over the constitution. he's put -- he's trying to be cute instead of being courageous. i think it's outrageous. you know, this is a guy who is trying to find a path to get re-elected to congress, not trying to find a path to do the right thing. >> welcome back. strong words from new jersey democratic governor phil murphy on congressman jeff van drew's decision to change parties from democrat to republican amid the impeachment deliberations. the impeachment trial may be wrapped up by february. but as we are seeing in swing districts around the country, its impact could be felt well into the ballot box next november. gabe, zerlina, and john are back. so van drew.

is he the exception or the rule here? >> well, it's an exception. i mean, you very rarely see party switching and this is a very extreme example of democrats feeling uncomfortable. obviously, a lot of them are feeling the pressure here. but van drew was always a little bit of an interesting character. there were a lot of democrats even in his district very uncomfortable with him. he had a primary last year. and it looks like he is going to have a really difficult next year or so because democrats are going to -- >> is he saving his seat with this? >> he certainly thinks so because he wouldn't do this otherwise. but democrats, both nationally and locally, have made it extremely clear to him that that is not going to be the case if they have anything to say about it. he's clearly hoping he can become trump's best friend. but that's not really a trump-friendly district. >> at least six staffers have quit. >> but it is a very strange thing because it used to be there were real rewards to party switching. like, when -- now, i'm blocking on the name. when -- when the senator from rhode island, in 2001, switched parties because -- or the -- he -- >> talking about lieberman? >> no, i'm sorry. i'm screwing up.

let me move on. there used to be a reward for party switching from the party that you switched to. right? but the story of the last decade has not been favorable. charlie chris, the governor of florida, switched parties when he was running for senate in order to beat marco rubio. lost. finally, he got a congressional seat finally. but that didn't work. didn't work for the senator from pennsylvania who switched parties because he was going to lose. the party you go to doesn't like you because they don't trust you idealogically. the party you went to has a very vested interest in crushing you till you die. >> but isn't donald trump going to hail him as a hero? he's going to switch parties because -- isn't he going to get twitter love from the president? >> he may but that will not prevent a conservative republican from running in that district and beating him. >> i think the reason you're not getting rewarded is because it's plainly cynical and plainly an

opportunistic move, specifically because you want to get re-elected. not because you're doing it for any principled recent. >> let's remember like a few months ago here. the reason that he won this district is because he was a democrat. and it was a whole big deal that a democrat won this district for the first time. but this guy's not running in mississippi. he's not running in a place where trump is going to help him. the whole reason this district was competitive in the first place was because of trump's unpopularity. >> so this trial's going to take place in january. it will either be wrapped up in a few weeks. or, say, it takes two months, three months. that's still a long way off from november. how much are the decisions that are being made in the senate in january or -- or congress in december -- how much are those really going to have a bearing on what people vote in november? >> i don't think the procedural will have an impact on how people vote. what i do think is important is that like i said at the beginning of the show, we have to start this process assuming republicans are going to take it seriously. they may not. they're clearly demonstrating

that they don't intend to do that. but i think this process is serious. even if republicans are not going to take it seriously. and by november, what will have been established is the evidentiary trail that shows the president's misconduct. and the democrats' actions to try to hold him accountable because, katy, i don't believe he's going to stop cheating between now and november. just because he's being impeached for the attempt in the first instance or the second instance. >> is this going to be a problem for biden? i mean, i hate to be the cynical one here. but if the president goes and -- and just continues on this path of joe biden is a cheater. joe biden stopped investigations. whether it's true -- i mean, it's not true. you know, he's going to go full force on it. and people are going to bring it up in town halls. is this going to be more of a thing? is this going to be but her e-mails. >> yes. i think that was the intention the entire time. >> just bring it up and throw it out there. and then let it -- >> from the beginning, always been e-mails 2.0. they were trying to muddy up joe biden by saying, look over there.

ukraine is investigating. >> so what do democrats do? run closer to joe biden? or run away from joe biden? >> i don't think democrats need to make a choice about what they do in terms of joe biden. but joe biden's campaign absolutely needs to know that hilary clinton is the living example of how not to handle the situation in terms of starting with a defensive posture. that i think plagued the campaign throughout. and i think that joe biden needs to be a lot stronger. >> take a page from trump's book. >> they need to assume this is going to be an attack. i'm surprised that the senate trial is now going to be short because i thought that part of the strategy could be to try to use the trial as putting joe biden on trial. as opposed to donald trump. so i think they're going to try to muddy him up with the ukraine controversy anyway. regardless of the impeachment. >> i mean, that's the danger, by the way, for democrats with this strategy that schumer is using. about pushing for witnesses. because the deal will be, if there is a deal, that you get your witnesses. and we're going to go after hunter biden on burisma. >> is that a bad deal for

democrats? >> well, i mean, it's only a bad deal for democrats if joe biden is the nominee. i'm not sure it's a bad deal for democrats if it isn't. i'm not talking about fair/unfair here. i'm talking about the politics of the situation. the attack on biden has been far more effective than i expected. that is to say, i thought there was attack on his son. everyone would say it's transparent. biden would come out and say how dare you? i got like one surviving -- you know, i've got one surviving child and you're going after him? like, i just had to go through the death of my son and you're going after my other son? but he hasn't done that. and so it's worked. and so, in masome ways, impeachment may be harmful to trump. but it helped him surface this issue and get republicans to bash it for a month. >> gabe, zerlina, and john, thank you very much. 2020, exciting or daunting. ahead, a new development in america's longest war. just days after the work "washington post" published a

trove of documents that u.s. officials have been lying to the public about the conflict for years. lying to the public about the conflict for years. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin,

is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®.

to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. woman: friction points, those obstacles that limit a company's growth. i try to find companies that turn these challenges into opportunities. it's these unique companies with creative business models that will generate value for our investors. that's why i go beyond the numbers. that will generate value for our investors. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute,

because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. that the forces are coming back. they're coming back home. we've reducing over here. but because of technology and all of the thing that we have, we're able to reduce in

afghanistan, very substantially actually reduce, and do even more devastating attacks on the enemy. >> welcome back. that was president trump during his thanksgiving visit with soldiers in afghanistan. and that troop withdrawal he mentioned is now expected to become official as early as next week, according to current and former officials. nbc news was the first to report that the trump administration intends to announce the drawdown of about 4,000 troops from afghanistan. the move would leave between 8 and 9,000 troops on the ground there. this news comes a week after e "the washington post" gained access to thousands of pages of documents showing the u.s. government, under three different presidents, misled, some might say lie, misled or lied to the public about the reality of the war in afghanistan. joining me now is nbc's carol lee, who is one of the reporters who broke the news about the upcoming troop withdrawal. and "washington post" investigative reporter and the lead on the post afghanistan papers project, craig whitlock.

carol, first to you. can you tell me about the aboutl and why it's happening now? >> sure, katy. what we've been told is that this would be what the pentagon calls a phased withdrawal, meaning there may be an announcement as early as this week that these 4,000 troops are going to be leaving afghanistan, but it would happen over time. and the way that it would work is as troops that are in afghanistan rotate out, they just wouldn't replace them with new troops, as they have been doing. so some of the troops will be redeployed in the region or elsewhere, and others we're told will come home. but it's not as if all 4,000 are going to be coming home next week or something like that. this is something that's going the take a little bit more time. it would leave between eight thousand and 9,000 troops there in afghanistan as the u.s. tries to use this announcement to reset talks with the taliban and hopes that they could draw that number down even further. >> got it. that was going to be my second

question, but you answered it. craig, for those of our viewers who have not read "the washington post" synopsis of the afghanistan papers or those who might not have read all 2,000 pages of the afghan papers, can you summarize what you found? because as i was reading it, it just -- every sentence was more infuriating than the last sentence. >> so what was startling to me when i first obtained these afghanistan papers, as we call them, they're interviews with more than 400 people who played a direct role in the war, from 2001 to about 2016 or so. these are people range from generals and ambassadors down to aid workers or people served in the field. but they're very raw, emotional interviews in many cases. but what was striking were the people in charge admitting that not only was the war kind of a disaster, but their strategy was flawed, or they had no strategy at all. and they speak in very open

terms about the failures of the war. this was very different, of course, from the message that was being presented to the public over the last 18 years, that while it's a challenge and the war is tough, that we're always making progress. that was the official talking point. so that's a direct contradiction of what people say in these interviews in the afghanistan papers. >> so this war has cost almost a trillion dollars. it has taken the lives of thousands of people in the region and people and american soldiers. why did they continue to mislead or lie to the public for more than a decade? why was it over and over again we are making progress when they clearly were not making progress? >> well, that's the big question. and the question of the day, to be honest is why did they say this? why did they stick with it? i think there is a few different answers than that and different situations. of course, our military is the

strongest in the world. they're very capable. but i think part of military culture is you never want to admit that you failed at a mission. the military culture is always that no matter what the challenge is, no matter how difficult they salute and they say we'll carry it out. we'll carry out the mission. we just need more troops, more time, more money, or a redoubled effort. so i think it's very difficult for people in charge to say, look, we failed. it was too hard. i think there is also some people who thought who genuinely believed in it, that maybe they knew there were problems, but they just had a hard time owning up to the extent of it. i think there is a number of reasons. but generally, that cultural issue where it's just hard to admit that after all that money, all those lies lost, that the war failed, it's hard to do that. >> so you talk about the blame at the administrative level, the administration level. you talk about the blame at the pentagon and people saying things in private that they won't say in public, but you

also talk in this article summarizing the papers about congressional appropriations, and the money that was just thrown at afghanistan and that congress bears some responsibility for just basically writing a blank check to spend unnecessarily and sometimes to our detriment in afghanistan. >> yeah, and this particularly happened during president obama's first term when we surged the number of troops in afghanistan to 100,000. and spent tens of billions a year trying to very quickly build up the afghan government so it could stand on its own two feet. but in these interviews in the afghanistan paper, there was one that really stuck with me where there was an aid worker said a member of congress came to visit afghanistan, and the aid worker was complaining, sir, you're expecting me to spend three millions of dollars a day in this one afghan district in a place with mud huts and no windows. how can i possibly do that? and the member of congress just

kind of shrugged. but you hear the word "insane" a lot in these documents. it just didn't make any sense. >> and that congress person was asked what they would do with that much in their district and he or she said oh, i don't think i could spend that a day in my district. i just wouldn't be possible which underscores what in the world was that money going to in afghanistan. again, if you haven't read it yet, at least read "the washington post" summary of the afghanistan papers. it is infuriating. craig whitlock, thank you so much. carol lee, thank you as well. and we'll be right back. you asl and we'll be right back. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪a kit we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

that is all for tonight. chuck will be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." in the meantime, here is ari melber with "the beat." >> thank you, katy. congressional democrats now marching towards impeachment right now, releasing this new formal report that argues president trump betrayed the nation through multiple felonies. meanwhile, senator schumer has basically broken his silence and is coming out swinging. he is putting pressure on republicans in the senate over the looming trump trial. the house, meanwhile, still planning to hold this floor vote on impeachment wednesday, and today the judiciary committee is releasing, as mentioned, this exhaustive 658-page report. let me give you some quick key highlights. they allege, which has been said before, that donald trump, quote, committed an abuse of power. but there is some other stuff here that's new. you'll notice the constitutional offense of bribery,